He'll deliver on his inaugural address by sharing how the US can "lead global efforts."

On Tuesday at Georgetown University, President Barack Obama plans to deliver on his biggest promise from the 2013 inaugural address. "In my inaugural address, I pledged that America would respond to the growing threat of climate change for our children and future generations," the president states in a new video on WhiteHouse.gov. So this week, he'll lay out his vision of where the US needs to go with "a national plan to reduce carbon pollution, prep our country for the impacts of climate change, and lead global efforts to fight it."

Obama made headlines back in January for, among other things, making a bold, public promise for climate change policy. He devoted eight sentences of his inauguration speech to climate change—more than any other topic noted the New York Times—and did not sugarcoat it at the time. “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science," Obama said. "But none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.”

In this new teaser video, Obama recognizes there is "no single step that can reverse the effects of climate change." He makes reference to the need for collaborative work from scientists and farmers, engineers and businesses, and all US citizens and employees alike. However, the video doesn't reveal any specifics. It leads to the WhiteHouse.gov/climate-change page, which does the same.

Many following the situation—USA Today, Reuters, and Ars Science Editor John Timmer—anticipate the president's plan will include bringing existing plants under the Clean Air Act (previously, this applied only to new construction). That type of action would be in line with recent statements from Heather Zichal, a top energy and climate adviser for the White House. During The New Republic's energy and environmental forum this week, Zichal told reporters, "In the near term, we are very much focused on the power plant piece of the equation."

On Sunday, the Organizing for Action team (a community organization group associated with BarackObama.com and a successor of Obama for America) sent out its e-mail notice about the announcement. The group warned that this climate change initiative will be met by strong opposition:

The powerful, well-financed forces who still deny the science behind climate change aren't going to like this—and they'll be fighting this progress every step of the way. In fact, before he's even seen the plan, House Speaker John Boehner is calling it "absolutely crazy."

Boehner's comments came during a press conference on Thursday. It was largely focused on immigration happenings, but a reporter eventually asked about this upcoming climate change announcement (around the 6:57:00 mark).

Without going into details, people should know that its disturbing when a scientific theory turns into a state ideology. By definition, all science is contingent (yes, no matter how uncomfortable that sounds), and clinging party politics into it is bound to corrupt the method, as it has been shown historically.

There is undoubtedly merit to the theory, but its far from convincing if you like to think skeptically. I am not well versed in climate science, but my training in physics makes think that a phenomenon such as global weather, that is so intrinsically dependent upon conditions we can't even model properly yet (oceanic temp. gradients, atmospheric fluid dynamics, non-human biomass emissions) and we cant even hope to know in "truth" (climate is a deterministic system for which we have recently started to guess its initial conditions so far) with our current knowledge of the world. Literally, every month new things are found out, models are refined or discarded, and theories branch into possible scenarios.

Seems to me its wrong to politicize such contingent research, specially when the economic implications are as such as they are.

There is simply nothing political about the actual science behind climate change. There is a great deal of politics (which I think is as it should be, and am fine with) around what, if anything should be done in response. But the science is the science. Since you are "not well versed in climate science" perhaps you should use your "physics background" to help educate yourself about such matters before just assuming. Forming an opinion based on non-educated assumptions really isn't very science-y is it?

It's unfortunate that the political discussion has focused on the science. There are important and legitimate policy questions that merit debate. "How much has the planet warmed?" and "How much is the planet likely to warm if we do ___?" are not policy questions. "How much cost are we willing to incur to have X% chance of preventing outcome Y?" is a policy question and not a science question at all, it's the kind of question our representatives should be trying to answer and which scientists ultimately can't. "There hasn't been any warming" and "nothing we do will affect global climate" are not legitimate policy arguments. "We should do nothing to prevent global climate change, and just worry about adaptation as things change" is a perfectly legitimate policy argument (whether you agree with it or not). Politicians having science arguments is just an embarrassment all around and is keeping us from discussing what matters.... they should stick to policy. Unfortunately, the more the politicians muck around in the science, the more the scientists feel they need to muck around in the policy, since no one else is doing it.

I'd be behind climate change and environmental concerns if the efforts actually made sense. The real solution needs to not come from government, but from individuals deciding to care and live better. The efforts the government makes spend billions of dollars for the most minimal results. I participated in one of these programs, collecting $8500 in grant money to replace 40 light fixtures with ones that where "more efficient". Reality was they where 30 years old and we where replacing them anyway, it was just nice the government offered to pay for them.

I think this is absolutely crazy. Why would you want to increase the cost of energy and kill more American jobs at a time when the American people are still asking the question, "where are the jobs?"

That's it. That's literally the only thing he said in response a question about action on climate change.

That is the only response you ever hear whenever any plan is made to lessen the impact of pollution on the environment. Acid rain? But jobs! Kyoto accord? But the economy! There won't be much of an economy left if conditions keep deteriorating beyond a recoverable point for human survival.

We'll see if the Democrats in congress have the nads to pass it before an election year. Instant rate increases for those areas where electricity is provided by coal won't sit too well with the average voter.And they will go up. The electric companies sure aren't going to eat the costs of switching to natural gas or installing scrubbers and such.

I think this is absolutely crazy. Why would you want to increase the cost of energy and kill more American jobs at a time when the American people are still asking the question, "where are the jobs?"

That's it. That's literally the only thing he said in response a question about action on climate change.

That is the only response you ever hear whenever any plan is made to lessen the impact of pollution on the environment. Acid rain? But jobs! Kyoto accord? But the economy! There won't be much of an economy left if conditions keep deteriorating beyond a recoverable point for human survival.

Exactly. But many of these people simply don't care. By the time the climate has deteriorated enough to seriously affect their profits, they'll have retired or died. I've actually heard the phrase "I'm glad I'm getting old," more than once. Boomers know full well what they're doing. They just want the chance to keep on doing it just long enought to retire and die comfortably. Screw the rest of us.They well deserve the title "The Most Selfish Generation".

I think this is absolutely crazy. Why would you want to increase the cost of energy and kill more American jobs at a time when the American people are still asking the question, "where are the jobs?"

That's it. That's literally the only thing he said in response a question about action on climate change.

2008, we have a financial crises and we get handed the ACA when we should have been fixing the economy. Now we have a social crisis from Obama's extension of the bush policies and the economy finally getting to the point where we can stop pumping with QE and we get.... Climate Change.

O has jumped the shark. Hong Kong just gave him the finger when he asked for Snowden. Only 4500 people showed up for his speech in Berlin. Dems are lining up behind Hillary. O is the lamest of lame ducks.

Obama will again deliver a super motivating speech about how 'Merica can and will be a world leader in environmental stewardship, usher in a new era of responsibility, and create infinity green jobs, then do absolutely none of that. He'll be too busy finishing the US's conversion into an autocratic police state. You won't need to worry about the environment when worrying becomes a thought crime and they drone-bomb you without trial for violating that law.

We'll see if the Democrats in congress have the nads to pass it before an election year. Instant rate increases for those areas where electricity is provided by coal won't sit too well with the average voter.And they will go up. The electric companies sure aren't going to eat the costs of switching to natural gas or installing scrubbers and such.

They already are, actually. Not the scrubbers part though, generally they're just shutting down the coal plants and converting them to or replacing them with gas.

As important as those issues are, they are much less important than climate change

Which is why this is an excellent move politically. Got a number of scandals hanging over your head? Make a few bold promises for some cause to change the subject to that. Of course, you don't have to actually fulfill the promises, so the bolder and more grandiose the better, since we live in a society that cares more about words than results (no one can remember long enough to call you on it!).

As important as those issues are, they are much less important than climate change

Which is why this is an excellent move politically. Got a number of scandals hanging over your head? Make a few bold promises for some cause to change the subject to that. Of course, you don't have to actually fulfill the promises, so the bolder and more grandiose the better, since we live in a society that cares more about words than results (no one can remember long enough to call you on it!).

I think this is absolutely crazy. Why would you want to increase the cost of energy and kill more American jobs at a time when the American people are still asking the question, "where are the jobs?"

That's it. That's literally the only thing he said in response a question about action on climate change.

That is the only response you ever hear whenever any plan is made to lessen the impact of pollution on the environment. Acid rain? But jobs! Kyoto accord? But the economy! There won't be much of an economy left if conditions keep deteriorating beyond a recoverable point for human survival.

Boomers know full well what they're doing. They just want the chance to keep on doing it just long enought to retire and die comfortably. Screw the rest of us.They well deserve the title "The Most Selfish Generation".

...yet seen. Give us Generation X-ers a chance, we've only just started to reach middle age. Time will tell if we're the generation that has to deal with the environmental hangover from the 20th Century, as well as the economic one. But we've been trained by our parents to have an inflated sense entitlement that will surely counteract any instinct for self-preservation in the face of approaching disasters. And that goes double for the Millennials that are following us.

I think this is absolutely crazy. Why would you want to increase the cost of energy and kill more American jobs at a time when the American people are still asking the question, "where are the jobs?"

That's it. That's literally the only thing he said in response a question about action on climate change.

That is the only response you ever hear whenever any plan is made to lessen the impact of pollution on the environment. Acid rain? But jobs! Kyoto accord? But the economy! There won't be much of an economy left if conditions keep deteriorating beyond a recoverable point for human survival.

Right? How many jobs did New Jersey lose? How many people can you employ in a burnt out husk of a city?

This is just deflection from other more important crises. Global warming/change has waited this long, another year or two isn't going to make any difference. We could shut down all CO2 production today and it'd only buy us a few years because China and India are not interested in reducing anything.

Why should shoulder this huge economic burden alone? Without the commitment of those two nations, any and all CO2 reduction is just pissing in the wind.

Frankly, I think climate change monies would be better spent on cleaning up more seriously pressing environmental issues like acid rain, groundwater pollution and paying for scrubbers and more inspectors to keep American businesses in line.

Climate change cannot be stopped. Think about it. If Obama cannot convince Hong Kong to extradite Snowden, how is he going to convince mainland China to forgo economic growth in order to stop climate change? It won't happen. It's a non-starter.

Better to focus on adaptation, and how the rich world can best help out poorer countries.